While I don't believe homosexuality is a cultural practice, I find this interesting. I was always of the assumption that homosexuality exists in all populations.






http://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...-exist/265849/

With one of the voices i talk we regularly have penis sword fights, one of the other voices drinks her own menstrual blood, Another voice told me to put my dick into a plugpoint it was very fun

What have u done with the voices u talk to.

With the surge of liberal-based discussions on ABF, I want to propose a solution with behavioral neuroscience.

We all start as babies, infants, children, and teenagers, before growing and maturing to adulthood. So everybody starts as children. But what is the child's perspective of the world and life? All children lack experience. Thus it is a universal truism that children have a predictable perspective in early stages of development.

Children trust words first, actions second. Words speak louder than Actions.

Because adults (parents) protect children from the hostility, violence, cruelty, and evil of the world. Children are shielded from hard drugs, sex, and violence. Children are protected from brutality, hate, and carnage. In order to protect children from these aspects of life… parents are authoritarian. Parents dictate to their children, what to do, where to go, how to dress, even sometimes what to think and believe. Parents mostly do this to protect their children from hostility.

Because of this parent-child relationship, all children from a young age perceive the world from a very particular perspective. Words, from an authority figure (first being the biological parent), are more important than direct-experience. Children are gullible, easy to trick, easy to fool, easy to mislead, easy to deceive. Because children naturally trust adults. They have to, they don't have a choice.

They don't have 'Choice' at all. This is why people never claim that children are "responsible for their own actions".


A child's understanding of the world comes from words, not actions. A parent's words, lessons, teaching, and society's education… all take precedent over the child's experience. How many people in the world really teach their children to trust in themselves first, and other people second? It seems, not many do this. Not many people teach their children to trust yourself first, and trust other people second. In fact most children… who grow into adults, never really trust themselves. This demonstrates a lack of self-confidence. As we all know, self-confidence is very important (mostly for males).

But let's get back to the point.

If words speak louder than actions then isn't this standard politickal liberalism? It doesn't matter how a person acts… it only matters what a person says, feels, and thinks. This immediately applies to legality, crime, and punishment. There are "thought-crimes". Thought-crime primarily is a liberal invention, not a conservative one. Because I will argue that conservatism is more about "Actions speak louder than Words".

People are judged more by what they do, not what they say.

Imagine for a moment if Secular Liberalism took over the world with their Globalist streak. Everybody would be guilty of a crime… just for thinking of a crime. If you think of stealing then you are a thief, forever, and you ought to go to jail. You thought of a crime; you must go to jail.

As a side-note, there is a lot of liberal streaks in the Christian religion. Sin is the original "thought-crime". Christians were some of the first to invent these liberal ideas.


Likewise punishing criminals doesn't make sense in a liberal society. How do you force a thief to "rehabilitate" himself? What can he do? Can he stop thinking about stealing, how? How are criminals prosecuted and rehabilitated in a liberal world?

In a conservative world, things make more common sense (to me). If a person kills another person then you can convict this person of murder, go to court, get the death penalty, and solve the situation eye-for-an-eye. It is justifiable to murder a murderer. But liberals don't think so. Many liberals are hypocrites about this point. If you think of murder then you must become murdered yourself??? According to liberalism, a death penalty may kill off a lot of people in the world. Because you are guilty of murder, by thinking about murder.

(Note: thinking of something ≠ fantasizing of something, some people on ABF cannot seem to separate these two. For some on ABF, thinking of something automatically means that you fantasize about it, and want to do it.)


Liberalism seems like a childish perspective of the world, maybe an 'innocent' perspective. It is naive and ignorant in a way. It seems caused by either a lack of will to understand the world, or fear of evilness and cruelty of life. Some people choose liberalism because "Ignorance is bliss". But this naivety does have consequences. For example you can see what happens when people refuse to "grow up". Liberals immediately start advocating for thought-crime. Why not? What's wrong with attacking people for what they think, but never do?

Is it wrong? Or isn't it right? If you think about something then you are that something, correct?

On the contrary I'm not saying that conservatism is "better" or "good". I simply want to demonstrate the difference of perspective, mostly caused by in/experience, in people. Children tend to see the world as "words are more important". Because adults, using words, protect children. But what about growing-up? What about adults?

For me it seems clear when people absolutely refuse to grow-up. Actions never speak louder than words. Actions do not define people. If a person steals then… this person isn't a thief. If a person kills then… this person isn't a murderer. If a person rapes then… this person isn't a rapist. Because actions do not define them! Instead liberals say that criminals are caused by "lack of social upbringing". It's never the criminal's fault for committing a crime. We can never judge the criminal.

Because actions do not define people; that is liberalism.

It is grounded in a childish perspective, mind-set, and brain pattern. Some adults never "grow-up". I bet that scientists could scan brains of adult liberals and conservatives, and see stark differences in the brain structures. Are there any neuroscientists in the house??? :)

This straightforward article was published in 2009 in Dansk Politi,the Danish police's own branch magazine.
Bøgeparken is a housing area in Vollsmosse, Odense with a large immigrant community that causes a lot of trouble (surprised?).

Translated from Danish:
Link and complete Danish language text here


I guess the situation is similar in many immigrant enriched neighborhoods. Or? I have noticed that many crimes committed by immigrants tend to be more violent, remorseless and done in packs and that the victims are overwhelmingly outside their own ethnic group. They really do create for themselves a "us and them" world. For me, it's not an issue about the hosting country's ability to integrate them, but more a question of are they intergrateable?

Finnish humorous song in Eurovision song contest "Marry me" got zero points even from Estonia, Sweden and Norway, while many heavy humourless love songs with naive theatrical suits and vapid "I miss you so much" lyrics were awarded. We should worry about the mental situation of Europeans, is it going behind the politics and economic and the Europeans are coming too humourless people.

First I request that Elias put this thread in the proper category (if it is not already). I do not know where to put this anthropology category. It seems to be "Gender Science"? This thread is about sexual attractiveness, based on gender. So this category request is the preclusion to the thread.


Fe/Male Attractiveness Meter and Measurement

Prelude: I am very aware of different societies/nations/cultures/etc. around the world. Everybody comes form a different group/people. We all need to become aware of this, before discussing what I am about to posit. Again I repeat this thread is about sexual attractiveness based on gender. The thesis is: "Males sexually are attracted to different traits than are females to males." In other words females may find a rich male more sexually attractive. A male may find a poor female more sexually attractive. These are im/probable hypotheses.

Warning: Every culture has different values. Some attempt to control or influence sexual attractiveness. The most obvious control is religion. In conservative Abrahamism (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) you are not allowed to marry outside the faith. This means, no matter the sexual attractiveness of a person, you cannot marry him/her. You are disallowed to have sex with this person, based on faith/religion/spirituality/belief.

So there are limitations to human sexuality. There are many factors which help/hinder sexual attraction and mating.


That said, let's begin:

I personally was raised in USA. My education is from the publik school system. In the United States we are educated as children, in my area, to disbelieve in race and gender difference. In other words we are taught as children (here in the US) that "there is one race, the human race". We are also taught as children that "men and women are equal, the same thing". So these are the premises I was raised with, and forced to believe in. As an adult, I now view that these are not only incorrect, false, and wrong… but they are outright lies. They are lies. And they actually harm everybody, not just me. They also harm you too. Well they can harm you, if you let them.

Instead we should all focus on objectivity and science. We should all focus on sexual attractiveness, between different groups of people, around the world. A big part of this is understanding and accepting the premise of race & gender.

The focus of this thread will become more about gender, and not so much race. I want to focus on male/female sexual attraction, not racial sexual attraction.


Here is my personal perspective. You probably have a different perspective… add them to the thread. All are welcome.


Male sexual attractiveness (top 10, from women):

1. Confidence/Character
2. Tall Height (above 6')
3. Heaviness (more weight)
4. Physical Fitness (stronger/leaner/muscular)
5. Outgoing/Extroverted Personality
6. Rich/Wealthy
7. Facial Beauty (handsome)
8. Charisma (comedic, quick wit, funny)

Race is a factor; but I don't know where to place it on the list. For women, it maybe near the top.


Female sexual attractiveness (top 10, from men):

1. Beauty (facial beauty, healthy hair)
2. Lean
3. Fitness/Proportional body (hourglass shape if curvy)
4. Poor
5. Socially connected, has a lot of friends

Race maybe near the bottom for men. From my life experience, men are less 'racist' than women. Men will have sex outside of race/ethnicity with less social stigma. Women tend to worry more about social stigma.


This is a somewhat quick list. There are many other factors and things to consider. First I want to address a few important notes. The first note is race. In the USA we are taught "race does not exist". So I cannot determine whether racial & ethnic phenotypes are higher or lower for fe/males. I suspect that men care less about race/ethnicity than women do. Women care more about race/ethnicity, due to social stigma and xenophobia. It is more acceptable for a male to bring home a woman from another race/ethnicity, than it is for women to do the same. This probably is true around the world, not just in the US. Do you dis/agree?

A quick note is dick size; this seems less important though. I honestly doubt this plays a large role in female selectivity. I doubt that women actually care about this for mating. However it may play a part in male confidence. In other words a male may feel more or less confident, based on this. Although I have mixed feelings about this. A man can derive confidence from many aspects of his life. So to conclude, dick size seems trivial/immature. I honestly doubt it plays a significant role in female sexual attraction nor male confidence in general. What do you think?

The second note is wealth. Some people say that "money cures everything", I disagree. A man who is rich… but introverted, not funny, and not charming… is not going to find sexual success. He will need to pay a prostitute/hooker. But this does not count for mating, having children, or sexual attractiveness. In fact I've seen many studies done about this. I believe that height, and extroverted & charming personality, are much more important than wealth. This is from my personal experience/opinion. Wealth is not too important. Although some cultures may add more or subtract less value to this trait. For example in culture Z, wealth may go up 1 or 2 ranks, or down 1 or 2 ranks.

Different groups/societies/nations will have different ranks. For example, a poor society may value wealth more, in male attractiveness.

The third note is poor wealth for females. I disagree with feminism in general. I believe that poor wealth, for a beautiful woman, actually is more attractive than rich wealth for a beautiful woman. In other words a beautiful woman who is poor probably has more sexual attraction than a beautiful woman who is rich. This is because men feel good, and therefore more confident, about becoming the provider. If a beautiful woman is poor then a man will feel more confident around her. Therefore she is more attractive to the male. Women are very converse or inverse to men. So a tall height in a man is a plus. While a short height in a woman is a plus. The values are sometimes converse or sometimes inverse.

This means that fe/male sexual attraction often compliments the other. The disadvantage of one becomes offset by the other. The advantage of one becomes shared by the other. When these values are balanced, human evolution occurs. This is how people "evolve" through sexual selection. Disadvantages are equalized and negated. Advantages are compounded. This forms a mutually beneficial relationship.

The forth note is excluding intelligence. IMO intelligence is undefinable and too complex to include into these factors. In other words intelligence can go anywhere on any side. Intelligence could be #1 for males, but last for females. Intelligence could be #1 for females, but last for males. They both could be #1. They both could be last. It can go any direction. Although I am led to believe that intelligence is unattractive in general, not attractive. In other words I believe that intelligence is last on both males and females, not first.

The fifth note is understanding height in males, and beauty in females. A tall male is equivalent to a beautiful looking female. It doesn't matter if the tall man is ugly, introverted and shy, lazy and out of shape. Likewise it doesn't matter if the beautiful woman is narcissistic, vain, shallow, a horrible personality, cruel, mean hearted, and self absorbed. All of the disadvantages offset the #1 value. I even see proof of this on ABF forum. There is one particular female that has the beauty, but none of the other values. This is okay and acceptable.

Because in general, men trump beauty, and women trump height. We don't care. In the end, if a man can get with a beautiful woman then he is seen as successful. In the end, if a woman can get with a tall man then she is seen as successful.


Repeat warning: these are just my opinions & observations. This is not "science" per se. Even though I can pull-out many scientific studies, tests, and empirical findings. There are many documentaries and much data on some of these factors. However many of these factors are covered up, hidden, and destroyed, due to politickal-correctness and hurt feelings. This all is anti-scientific. We cannot allow this, in the name of science. We must accept the hurt feelings. We all have individual advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses.

Questions:

How does your culture/society/religion/ethnicity/nation value fe/male sexual attractiveness?

Some nations have taller & shorter people… does this not change the rank system between different countries?

Different societies have a "most beautiful woman" phenotype, do you feel your own country's "Miss Universe" is an adequate representation of your own society's female beauty?

Which barriers have you been raised with, like in the US, have you been raised that we are all "one race, the human race"? Have you also been taught that men and women are "the same"?


Conclusion:

I'll tell you about a personal barrier that I had to overcome. For my education, I was always taught that men and women are "equal" and "the same". This lie took me a long time to overcome. Because you would think that men and women value the same things. Therefore both men and women value… extroversion, charisma, intelligence, race, beauty, etc. These are not true. It seems to me, now, that men and women as genders, do not value the same things.

For example, it seems clearer to me now that having a lot of wealth and money for men is an advantage but a disadvantage for women. Due to this premise, the "feminist" and "equal pay" of women actually is harming and disadvantageous for women… and advantageous to men. Equal pay actually hurts the sexual attractiveness of women, and helps the sexual attractiveness of men.

Because men don't need to focus on making money anymore. The more money a woman has, or wants, becomes more disadvantageous to her sexual attractiveness.


I hope that you will include your own observations, rankings, and thoughts about fe/male sexual attractiveness. How is your country and personal experiences different? Were you taught the same things, or did you know from an early age, that men and women are almost completely different?

A new Finnish study shows that Finnish women prefer men with lower testosterone as a sex partner. The difference between women in Finland and in other European countries was obvious. Especially in Baltic countries women preferred more masculine men with higher testosterone level. The reason for this behaviour differing from neighboring countries was however hard to find. Researches suggested that Finnish women search men who want to do housework like cleaning and childcare. The study was done for example by using modified pictures of male faces asking which face looks most attractive. An example

http://hs10.snstatic.fi/webkuva/olet...8319733?ts=469

Women modify male genes in a long run. IMO Finnish men in old photos look more masculine than today. Hard to say if the reason is this, environmental pollution or way of life.

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opini...ns-tv-study-fi



Social bullying, often by an attractive perpetrator, is widespread on children's TV, study finds



Efforts to combat bullying in schools — such as those recommended in August by Gov. Mark Dayton’s task force on “Safe and Supportive Minnesota Schools” [PDF] — are struggling against a very strong headwind: children’s television.

For, even young children — those aged 2 to 11 — watch an alarming number of TV depictions of social bullying every day, according to a study published recently in the Journal of Communication.

Furthermore, those acts of TV bullying are most likely to be perpetuated by an attractive real-life person or fictional character and without any negative consequences to the bully.

“[S]ocial aggression on television poses more of a risk for imitation and learning than do portrayals of physical aggression,” conclude the studies authors, Nicole Martins, an assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University, and Barbara Wilson, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.


Every four minutes

For the study, Martins and Wilson looked at 150 episodes (three episodes each) of 50 of the most popular shows among children under the age of 12 as determined by Nielsen Media Research. They included shows aimed specifically at children, such as “Rugrats” and “iCarly,” and those aimed at adults but watched frequently by kids, such as “American Idol,” “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy” and “Fear Factor.”

The researchers found that 92 percent of the programs included incidents of social aggression, which they defined as an action aimed at damaging self-esteem or social standing through “gossiping, social exclusion, giving dirty looks, and friendship manipulation.”

In fact, an average of 14 different incidents of social aggression occurred per hour in these shows — or about one every four minutes.

Most (78 percent) of the incidents were verbal, primarily insults (52 percent) and name-calling (25 percent). The nonverbal incidents usually involved individuals making a mean facial expression (36 percent) or laughing (31 percent) at someone else.

Unlike in real life, where social aggression tends to be conducted behind people’s backs, most incidents of social aggression on TV (86 percent) were enacted directly at the person targeted, the study found.

The context of these TV incidents of social aggression was also troubling, say the authors. “Compared to the portrayals of physical aggression,” Martins and Wilson write, “social aggression was more likely to be enacted by an attractive perpetrator, to be featured in a humorous context, and neither rewarded or punished.”

Those factors increase the likelihood that the perpetuators of social aggression will serve as role models for young viewers, the authors add.


Serious consequences

This new study does not prove that the social aggression depicted on TV turns children into bullies, but it does raise some troubling questions.

“Because social aggression does not result in physical injury, it may be tempting to conclude that it is less problematic than overt behavioral aggression,” write Martins and Wilson. “Yet the consequences of social aggression can be quite serious. Victims of social aggression typically are rejected by their peers and consequently experience sociopsychological adjustment problems. Victims also report poor self–concept and self-esteem. In extreme cases, social aggression has even been implicated in suicide.”

Social aggression in the real-life world of teenagers is widespread. In a 2002 survey of 1,001 teens, report Martins and Wilson, 66 percent said they were the target of cruel gossip or teasing at least once a month. The teens also said that ending such bullying was the No. 1 change they’d like to see in their school to stop violence.

School-based anti-bullying programs will help, but this study suggests that parents also need to pay attention to what their children are watching on TV (and in the movies).

“Parents should not assume that a program is OK for their child to watch simply because it does not contain physical violence,” advise Martins and Wilson. “Parents should be more aware of portrayals that may not be explicitly violent in a physical sense but are nonetheless antisocial in nature. Such content may be encouraging children to engage in behavior that is destructive and cruel.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113201339.htm

Jan. 14, 2009 — A genetic variation involving the brain chemical serotonin has been found to shape the social behavior of rhesus macaque monkeys, which could provide researchers with a new model for studying autism, social anxiety and schizophrenia. Humans and macaques are the only members of the primate family to have this particular genetic trait.


"We have found very similar gene-based disruptions in social rewards shared by monkeys and by humans," said Michael Platt, Ph.D., associate professor of neurobiology at Duke University Medical Center and an expert in neuroeconomics.

Platt's research group at Duke studied behavior and social anxiety in two groups of monkeys with variations in the serotonin transporter gene, crucial to regulating emotion. Based on earlier observations in humans, the scientists knew that humans carry two versions of the gene, long and short. Some people have two long versions (L/L), but the people with one of each (S/L) are known to experience a higher incidence of social anxiety and other behaviors.

In a series of experiments, the S version of the gene in monkeys was found to influence their risk-taking when faced with particular social stimuli.

"Based on work in humans, we interpreted this to reflect an induction of a fearful emotional state, which often leads people to become risk averse," said Karli Watson, Ph.D., of the Duke Department of Neurobiology, lead author on the paper.

In human populations of European ancestry, 48% are S/L and 36% are L/L. The rest are S/S. The S allele is more common in Asian populations, Watson noted.

The authors conducted three experiments with male monkeys that had been genotyped for the S/L or L/L variants to learn how genetic variation might influence their responses to social rewards and punishments. They found that monkeys with one copy of the short gene spent less time gazing at images of the face and eyes of other monkeys, were less likely to engage in risk-taking behavior, and less likely to want to view a picture of a high-status male.

"For both human and non-human primates, faces and eyes are a rich source of social information, and it's well established that both humans and macaques tend to direct visual attention to faces, especially the eye region," Platt said. "Rhesus monkeys live in highly despotic societies, and convey social rank information by making threats and showing dominant and submissive behaviors."

In the eye imaging experiment, the monkeys were observed while being shown images of the faces or scrambled faces of familiar monkeys. In addition to spending less time looking at faces and eyes, the S/L monkeys also had larger pupil diameters when gazing at photos of high-status male macaques, indicating higher arousal.

"Their brains set off alarms," Platt said. "In human studies, people with the short version of the gene often show hyperactive amygdalas, a part of the brain involved in detecting threats in the environment. In autism, too, people often don't look people directly in the eye, which may point to a new avenue of research."

In a second experiment, the S/L monkeys were less willing to take risks after they were primed with the faces of high-status males. They more often chose a "safe" option of a fixed volume of juice, rather than the chance for a greater or lesser amount, the "risky" choice. Previous studies have found that inducing fear in human subjects makes them more risk-averse. "Our findings showed that faces of high-status males cause greater fear in the S/L monkey," Platt said.

The final experiment was a pay-per-view set-up. The monkeys could have a juice reward paired with an image or a juice reward without any image. The images were of high-status male faces, low-status male faces, female genitals or a gray square. The S/L monkeys actually had to be paid juice to view the dominant males, while the L/L monkeys gave up juice for a look at these faces.

"Heightened sensitivity to social threats may prove to be helpful in many ways, because success in a social group depends on seizing opportunities while avoiding any potential harmful, antagonistic interactions," Watson said.

"Altogether, our data show that genetic variation in serotonin function does contribute to social reward and punishment in macaques, and thus shapes social behavior in both humans and rhesus macaques," Watson said. "This study confirms rhesus monkeys can serve as a model of what goes on in our brains, even in the case of social behavior."

The study appears in the online journal PLoS One on Jan. 13.

Jason H. Ghodasra, also a study author, is a medical student in the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, in Chicago. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grants, the Cure Autism Now Foundation, and a Howard Hughes Undergraduate Research Fellowship.

---------- Post Merged at 07:28 ----------

Basically saying that monkeys behave the same way as beta males when they see a masculine jock. The brain is in panic mode. That was me when I saw my bullies in college.

Chirlane McCray Bill De Blasio: Chirlane McCray Discusses Lesbian Past, Marriage To Bill de Blasio | Breaking News for Black America

Now we know why gays fear ex-gays.

I think that Western Society has a distorted view on sexuality among other stuff. There are two lines of thinking that I vastly oppose, that people are born heterosexual or homosexual, or that people chose their sexuality. When people talk about sexuality they vastly oversimplify it, ignoring so many factors. People are unwilling to admit to these factors because it would lead people to question their identity. I think that sexuality is related to civilization, especially urban areas. As society gets more complex so does people's personality and sexuality. Camille Paglia noted that homosexuality tends to flourish in urban areas. I agree with that point because the societal limits are always going to be minimize.

http://cphpost.dk/news/local/video-s...acked-city-bus

I don't intend to discuss the event of muslim immigrant boys in a Western country beating a chinese exchange student from America and calling him "Nihao" and other racial slurs.

That is just so common.

No, I wonder, why didn't the other on the bus intervened?

How common is this ultra-passive behavior when someone is beaten or raped in a street or any other public area full of bystanders and no one intervene and help the victim?

How would you have reacted if you saw something like this?

This happened in Denmark, and have happened in Norway and Sweden too I've read.

Does it happen in your country?

Can over-the-counter acetominophen help with common brain pains?

What do you think?

Have you ever used acetominophen for anything other than for its intended purpose?

Another related article:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08...ons/16761.html

My body is restless when I sleep (do you see the witty use of language there? Do you? DO YOU?!). My arms flail and my legs kick out. No one wants to sleep in the same bed as me. They say I'm always tossing and turning and occasionally hit them. They ask, "why are you always tossing and turning when you sleep?" to which I respond with, "shut the fuck up!" But eventually I say I don't know.

Both my father and I have restless leg syndrome. He has it worse than I do. I know he's kicked my mother a few times when he was asleep but that's always in relation to a dream where's karate kicking some evil doer. Sometimes when I'm about to fall asleep my head jolts or I kick out. It's a weird feeling. Obviously I have no clue how bad it is. I've never recorded myself sleeping and I don't own a video camera. But people who don't know each other have said the same thing: I'm tossing and turning far beyond what is normal and I beat them up while I sleep.

I could follow the advice of others and see a doctor but strangers on the internet is just as good.

Sex and Love
Study: body modification linked to active sex lives
Posted by Sex and Love editor on Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:30 AM

120623-Joanna-Black-Office-PG-028.jpg

burningangel.com

In many ways, what you choose to get tattooed on your body says more about you than the body you were born into. However, in the same way tattoos of Chinese characters don't always mean what those who get these symbols inked on themselves think they do, permanent forms of body art don't always communicate what we intend them to say.

Tattoos on women's lower backs have been dubbed, "tramp stamps"; the urban legend is that women with these tattoos are more promiscuous. While it is doubtful any women got these tattoos as indicators of their sexual receptivity, it is possible that the same personality traits that lead a person to get a tattoo may also influence his or her sexual behaviors. For instance, a guy who is impulsive enough to get a tattoo with his friends while drunk may also be more likely to have a one night stand. Or, it could be that those people with more conservative views toward tattoos also have more conservative views on sex.

A study published this month in The Journal of Sexual Medicine tested this connection between body modification and sexual behavior. The study divided 120 young adults between the ages of 20-35 into three subgroups: 60 adults with no tattoos or unusual body piercings, 28 adults with tattoos, and 32 with body piercings. These groups were given a survey of 59 questions. Socioepidemiological variables and sexual behaviors were compared between subgroups.

Researchers found that adults with body modifications were twice as likely as those in the control group to have sex at an earlier age. Also, the frequency of sex was statistically higher and oral sex was more likely to be a dominant sexual activity in adults with body modification. However, there was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of sexual orientation, sexual preferences, propensity to engage in risky sexual behaviors, frequency of masturbation, and history of sexual abuse.

It is important to remember that this study does not explain a casual relationship. It merely provides evidence that in our present culture there is some connection between these forms of body modification and sexual behavior.

Read more about the study here.